ArticleScientific reports2025
Invulnerability bias in perceptions of artificial intelligence's future impact on employment.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is reshaping the labor market; however, individuals' perceptions of its impact remain inconsistent. This study investigates the presence of the Invulnerability Bias (IB), where workers perceive that AI will have a greater impact on others' jobs than on their own, and Optimism Bias by Type of Impact (OBTI), where individuals perceive AI's future impact on their own job as more positive than on others'. The study analyzes survey data collected from 201 participants, recruited through social media using convenience sampling. The data were analyzed using a combination of statistical and machine learning methods, including the Wilcoxon test, ordinary least squares regression, clustering, random forests, and decision trees. Results confirm a significant IB, but not OBTI; only 31.8% perceived AI's future impact on their own job as more positive than on others'. Analysis shows that greater knowledge of AI correlates with lower IB, suggesting that familiarity with AI reduces the tendency to externalize perceived risk. Furthermore, bias levels vary across professional sectors: healthcare, law, and public administration exhibit the highest IB, while technology-related professions show lower levels. These findings highlight the need for interventions to improve workers' awareness of AI's potential future impact on employment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.